Please, engage in the topic. Why do the crime rates of San Francisco disprove the theories of progressive policies, but the crime rates of Memphis, the nation’s most dangerous city by far, do not disprove the tough-on-crime theories of that jurisdiction’s district attorney?
Great. In that case you agree with numerous academic studies: the progressive or conservative policies of district attorneys has no influence over local crime rates!
Now with that settled we can discuss the causes and solutions of crime in SF. Because we’ve ruled out Chesa Boudin as both cause and potential solution.
> Great. In that case you agree with numerous academic studies: the progressive or conservative policies of district attorneys has no influence over local crime rates!
Don't put words in my mouth. You probably think yourself clever, having trapped me with a "gotem". Actually, you kinda just made yourself look foolish. You have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding in how the justice system works.
I'll educate you.
Prosecutors have to bring charges to hold people accountable. If the prosecutor doesn't bring charges or does a poor job presenting their case, criminals aren't held accountable.
If a prosecutor brings charges and secure a conviction, the judge needs to provide an appropriate sentence. It used to be the case that judges had a lot of discretion as to how to sentence an offender. Now sentencing is tightly controlled by state law and sentencing guideline commissions, which are GENERALLY soft on crime (in the name of "equity").
State law and/or sentencing commissions ultimately decide what the maximum punishment for a crime can be.
So in short, you're wrong about Chesa Boudin. If ANY ONE of the above three entities fails to hold criminal accountable, the entire system fails to hold criminals accountable. In Chesa Boudin's case, he's failing at least as much as every other component.
